Council is strongly opposed to the proposed Moss Vale Plastics Recycling Facility.
In 2023, Plasrefine Recycling Pty Ltd (Plasrefine) submitted an amended development application to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment as a State Significant Development (SSD).
Due to being an SSD, the application was referred to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) to make a determination as the Consent Authority.
The Independent Planning Commission (IPC) is an independent statutory authority that determines certain State Significant Developments. In this case, they refused the application and are now the First Respondent in the applicant’s Appeal to the refusal.
Yes. The IPC held three public meetings in October-November 2024, two in person (28 October and 1 November 2024) and one online (12 November 2024), where over 100 people spoke against the proposal. Close to 3,000 written submissions lodged. (Moss Vale Plastics Recycling Facility | Independent Planning Commission).
Council’s formal objection of 5 November 2024. Individual Councillors Mayor Jesse Fitzpatrick (speech at public meeting), Deputy Mayor Erin Foley (written submission and speech), Cr Heather Champion (written submission and speech), Cr Rachel Russell (written submission and speech), and Cr Nicole Smith (speech at public meeting) all made submissions, which will be considered in the appeal.
In January 2025, the IPC refused the development application – https://www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/pac/projects/2024/10/moss-vale-plastics-recycling-facility/case-outcome/statement-of-reasons-for-decision-moss-vale-plastics-recycling-facility-ssd-9409987.pdf
In July 2025, Repoly Pty Ltd (Repoly) lodged an appeal with the NSW Land and Environment Court, seeking to overturn the IPC’s refusal.
Joining the appeal as a party would result in significant additional legal costs, estimated up to $500,000. By remaining a formal objector but not a party, Council can continue to defend the Independent Planning Commission’s decision while delivering the programs outlined in the 2025/26 Operational Plan and Budget.
The applicant was originally named Plasrefine but has since renamed itself to Repoly.
Council formally lodged as an objector and resolved not to join as a respondent in the appeal. This was the resolution made at the Extraordinary Council Meeting 12 August 2025: https://www.wsc.nsw.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/2/council/meeting-minutes/2025/12-august-2025/draft-minutes-extraordinary-meeting-of-council-12-august-2025.pdf
Council has consistently opposed the application since it was first submitted as a State Significant Development and will continue to do so.
As a State Significant Development (SSD), Council is not the Consent Authority. Council could only make a submission, not approve or refuse the project. The NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure assessed the application and provided recommendations to the IPC. As the Consent Authority, the IPC ultimately determined the application by refusal.
Council lodged several formal submissions to the Department Planning, Housing and Infrastructure throughout 2022 and 2023 and to the IPC in October 2024, objecting strongly to the proposal. Council’s resolutions of 20 April 2022, 17 August 2022, 19 July 2023, 15 November 2023 and 30 October 2024 all affirm its strong objection.
Council highlighted issues including traffic impacts, the bulk and scale of the buildings, fire risk, compliance burden, incompatibility with the Southern Highlands Innovation Precinct and its proximity to nearby residents and the Garvin Institutes Bio Resources Facility.
As the Consent Authority, the IPC is defending its refusal as the first respondent, represented by the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office.
Yes. The Land and Environment Court is required to consider all submissions made to the IPC, including Council’s and the nearly 3,000 community objections.
Council considered legal advice and determined that the most effective way to continue opposing the proposal was to remain as an objector. The IPC is already presenting the case against the development. Joining as a second respondent is unlikely to add new arguments or strengthened the case, since the Court considers the facts and planning merit, not how many parties repeat the same points. Legal advice also confirmed that the financial cost of joining was uncertain but estimated to cost from $500,000. Taking this on would have required diverting resources away from delivering Council’s 2025/26 Operational Plan and community projects including road repairs.
By remaining as a formal objector, Council ensures its opposition is on the record and considered by the Court whilst the IPC’s is the lead respondent. This approach allows Council’s submission, together with the thousands of community objections, to be part of the evidence the Court must assess. It also ensures Council’s position remains consistent and visible throughout the process, while enabling the Independent Planning Commission, as the original consent authority, to lead the defence of its decision.
After more than two hours of discussion with legal advice, Councillors resolved not to join as a formal respondent, but to remain a formal objector. This ensures Council’s opposition is firmly on the record and represented.
No. Council remains firmly opposed to the Repoly appeal and will:
Council’s website will also be updated as information comes to hand.